! You are viewing this site on an outdated browser. Upgrade now to view this site correctly.
We are recruiting! If you are a qualified Trade Mark Attorney with at least 4 years’ post-qualification experience then please click below and read on.View vacancy details
Like most areas of law, Intellectual Property can appear daunting and complex. There are a great many practice areas, subjects and procedures. The SH&P “A-Z” Intellectual Property glossary is a free and easy to use glossary of legal terms commonly used and associated with IP. We hope that it will help you better understand this topic. All of the entries include contact details for SH&P expert advisers. Alternatively, you can request a free, no obligation, IP Consultation and Review here if you require more information or have a particular issue you would like us to help you with.
|This is a Latin term meaning “because he fears”. A quia timet injunction is one granted to a person who fears that another may commit a wrongful act i.e. the act has not yet occurred, but if it does, it will damage the party who seeks the injunction. In deciding whether to grant such an injunction, a court will need to be persuaded that the danger of the wrongful act occurring is imminent, that in committing the wrongful act the other party will cause irreparable damage, and that if granting the injunction is denied, there will be no other way of protecting the plaintiff’s interests.
The principles which apply when courts consider whether to grant quia timet injunctions were reviewed by the Court of Appeal in London Borough of Islington v. Elliot & Morris  EWCA Civ. 56 in which the council refused to cut certain trees down until their roots had damaged property nearby. In Merck Sharp Dohme Corp & Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Teva Pharma BV  EWHC 1958 (Pat) a quia timet injunction was granted to prevent patent infringement which was threatened and intentional.